[EM] What it takes to give meaning to a criterion "failure"

[Jameson Quinn]

The equal-top-ranking voters are not the ones who have a right to complain
about a CC violation. The ones who vote for the CW over the winner are. You
claim, they are not a majority, so the majority who top-ranked or voted for
the winner should be more important. So essentially, you are arguing that
the majority CC is the "meaningful" CC. Which is a perfectly valid
position, and one I largely agree with. And in my opinion, saying it that
way is more convincing than the seemingly circular argument that ICT is a
good system because ICT's definition of "beats" is a good definition.

Jameson

2012/7/30 Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>

> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > As far as I can tell, you are arguing that ICT meets the majority
> Condorcet
> > criterion
>
> No, I'm arguing that ICT meets Condorcet's Criterion, if Condorcet's
> Criterion is about electing the candidate who beats each one of the
> others, or who is the only unbeaten candidate. ICT does that, you
> know. Yes, it defines "beat" differently, but I claim that unimproved
> Condorcet's definition of "beat" is no more valid than that of ICT.
> Less valild, if judged by the intent and wishes of the
> equal-top-ranking voters.
>
> But yes, it meet the Majority Condorcet Criterion too (I capitalize
> names of methods and criteria for clarity).
>
>
> You said:
>
>  (does it?
>
> [endquote]
>
> Yes. Every method that meets CC, when ICT's "beat" definition is used,
> also meets MCC. But the reverse is not true.
>
> You continued:
>
> it seems to...) and that the MCC is more important than
> > the CC.
>
> [endquote]
>
> It certainly could be said that MCC is more important than CC in the
> sense that failing a more lenient criterion is worse. But, on the
> other hand, meeting a stronger criterion counts for more than meeting
> a weaker one. So then, who can say which is more important.
>
> But I was talking about CC, not MCC.
>
> You said:
>
> Do I read you correctly?
>
> [endquote]
>
> I'm claiming more than you thought that I was.
>
> I'm saying that ICT meets Condorcet's Criterion.
>
> That sounds like a preposterous thing to say, if you regard the
> definition of "beat" to be part of CC's definition, and if you take,
> as "beat" 's definition, the "beat" definition used in traditional
> unimproved Condorcet.  But "beat" could be regarded as a word defined
> external to CC's definition.
>
> And I've told why unimproved Condorcet's beat definition is no more
> valid or legitimate than that of ICT. Looked at in regards to the
> wishes and intent of the equal-top-ranking voters, the ICT beat
> definition is the more justifiable one.
>
> The two beat definitions:
>
> First I'll repeat some terms:
>
> (X>Y) is the number of ballots ranking X over Y.
>
> (Y>X) is the number of ballots ranking Y over X.
>
> (X=Y)T is the number of ballots ranking X and Y at top.
>
> (X=Y)B is the number of ballots ranking X and Y at bottom.
>
> Unimproved Condorcet's "beat"  definition:
>
> X beats Y iff (X>Y) > (Y>X)
>
> Improved Condorcet's "beat" definition:
>
> X beats Y iff (X>Y) > (Y<X) + (X=Y)T
>
> Double-Ended Improved Condorcet's "beat" definition:
>
> X beats Y iff (X>Y) + (X=Y)B > (Y>X) + (X=Y)T
>
> Which method meets CC depends on which "beat" definition you use with CC.
>
> You could say that you consider unimproved Condorcet's "beat"
> definition to be part of CC's definition. Or you could say that the
> meaning of "beat" is external to CC's definition. I suggest that the
> only justification of insisting on the former is if you think that the
> traditional "beat" definition, that of unimproved Condorcet is
> actually better, more justified. Otherwise, you're just clinging to
> tradition.
>
> I've compared the justification of those two "beat" definitions.
>
> ICT meets CC at least as validly, and arguably more validly, than
> traditional unimproved Condorcet.
>
> Mike Ossipoff
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120730/337da4de/attachment-0003.htm>